This week, Zack and Peterson continue the conversation about ex-gay therapy in the media — in particular, the NPR story that featured Peterson. But though some media portrayals still aren’t getting the message right, a new film paints a better picture. This Is What Love In Action Looks Like follows the story of Zach Stark, the 16-year-old who was forced into Love In Action’s Refuge program by his parents and provided detailed accounts of its rules and “therapies” on his MySpace. By showing how harmful ex-gay therapy can be, this film creates a new opportunity to educate the public on the harms of ex-gay therapy.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» TP: NPR Misrepresents Ex-Gay Therapy As ‘Controversial’ And Still Up For ‘Debate’
» TP: NPR’s Featured ‘Ex-Gay’ Guest Commits Over $200,000 To Dangerous, Unscientific Ex-Gay ‘Coachings’
» PT: Ex-Gay on NPR. Wrong question & Things unmentioned
» TP: Ten Things NPR Got Wrong Defending The Falsely Balanced Ex-Gay Story

» TP: Profiting Off Stigma: Janet Boynes, Bachmann’s Ex-Gay, Anti-Gay Superstar

» Ex-Gay Watch: Review: This Is What Love in Action Looks Like (Includes Upcoming Screening Dates)

Thanks to Michele Bachmann’s family business, ex-gay therapy is getting mainstream coverage in the news once again. But is it getting the coverage it deserves? Peterson and Zack welcome Christine Robinson back to the podcast to discuss how the media can better respond to the ex-gay movement and challenge the harmful rhetoric that continues to permeate society. Check out the many links below for the latest.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Listen back to our November 2010 interview with Christine.

» Citation and abstract for “Genocidal Intentions: Social Death and the Ex-Gay Movement” (Spivey & Robinson, 2010).

» Marcus Bachmann calls gays “barbarians” who need to be “disciplined.” The barbarians protest.

» Young people are more susceptible to ex-gay rhetoric.

» Ex-gay Stephen Bennett on Joy Behar.

Reverend Elizabeth Jeremiah (from the Elizabeth Jeremiah Global Worldwide Ministries in Jesus) stops by (hacks in) to the podcast today to chat with Zack about polygamy. The Brown family from TLC’s “Sister Wives” is suing the state of Utah to overturn the criminal ban on bigamy, and Rev. Jeremiah has some Biblical precedent to support their case. Peterson makes it back into the call to add some context from Dan Savage about being “monogamish.” Is it right to assume that monogamy is the best solution for all relationships? We pull back the curtain a bit on marriage and hope you join the conversation!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» The family from “Sister Wives” sues Utah over privacy protections.

» Dan Savage talks about being “monogamish” with his husband.

Peterson has wronged Zack; can Zack forgive him? In this fairly sober episode, Zack and Peterson dig into the idea of reconciliation and building bridges between the queer community and those who oppose it. What does it look like to build a bridge between conflicting groups? What kind of sacrifices and compromises need to be made to build it and by whom? There are those who seek to develop a bond of understanding between the groups, but what factors ensure the success of that effort? Once you listen, please feel free to leave your thoughts as a comment or email them to us at zackfordblogs@gmail.com and p2saki@gmail.com.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Check out Jane Brazell’s blog. She contributed some great thoughts to our discussion this week.

» The random feminist quote Peterson shared came from Ellen Willis.

» Check out the ABC News coverage of Marcus Bachmann’s reparative therapy clinic.

Two episodes in one week! Well, kind of. Not for us. But we’re back, and this week we dive head first into the Anthony Weiner “scandal.” So he showed some PG-13 pics on Twitter, but what did he actually do wrong? Listen as Peterson and Zack consider the matter from a perspective of sexual liberation. And then, we offer some tips on giving great workshops at conferences, with a brief lesson on Howard Gardner’s (not John Gardner’s) multiple intelligences. Peterson has lots of background sounds and Zack sounds like he’s in a submarine and getting everyone’s name wrong (sorry, Sen. Kyl — kind of), but the discussion will be so captivating you won’t even notice!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Learn more about Gardner’s multiple intelligences!

It’s the long lost episode! Zack and Peterson remained unraptured, but Zack’s blog definitely took a hit and the podcasting utility was down. But things are right again and the episode is finally up for you to listen! We started recording around 5:50 PM on May 21st and continued the discussion through the non-existent earthquake and Rapture while birds chirped in the background and friends sipped on alcoholic beverages. What’s up with this Rapture thing, and what does it mean for our lives from here on out? Take a listen and then join the discussion by leaving a comment!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Interracial marriage polling vs. same-sex marriage polling.

» Tennessee’s ban on nondiscrimination ordinances.

Okay, so first I assumed Stefon was gay. Then I backtracked and allowed for a bit more ambiguity about his sexuality, admitting that it wasn’t clear and didn’t define him. Can we at least now admit that he’s got a serious thing for Seth? It’s clear he almost already thinks they’re dating… and he wants to change his diapers. Or maybe the fact that he’s promoting bi-curious beach parties should be a clue! Not that it matters.

I recently attended a Stefon-themed party. Only a few people took the theme to heart, but there was a DJ Baby Bok Choy and a Jewpid in attendance. I hope the creative nonsense just keeps coming. Here’s what Stefon offered up for Mother’s Day!

Seventh Appearance – May 7, 2011

First club: Uuuuuuungh!

» Located in the middle of the West Side highway.
» Bi-curious beach party.
» (Italian) Club owner: Bologna Danza
» Split kicks.
» Pachucos.
» Pile after pile of expired Lunchables.
» Hawaiian cleaning lady that looks like Smokey Robinson.
» Natalie Portman? No. An old Irish black man that we call “Murphy Brown.”
» This Sunday: 2-year-old ultimate fighter “Drooly Lips Jackson.” He’s got fists like little empanadas. And he’s my best friend.

Second club: Spicy! (said in a strange voice)

» Opened in 2017.
» Upper east side of a dumpster.
» 24-hour bitch fest.
» Club owner: Rabbi Jew Diamond Phillips.
» Sandworms.
» Geishas.
» Rock eaters.
» A 7-level course in adult education.
» Kick back in a subway sleeping bag. (“When you’re on the train and you sit between two guys in FUBU jackets.”)

Stefon’s mom is Ms. Stefon and his dad is David Bowie.

How to say thank-you to your mom:

» Take her to central park and bond while flying a human kite. (“Where you tie a string to a midget in a windbreaker and then run through a field.”)

Seth’s Assessment: ”Even though you didn’t help tonight at all, no young party monster should be alone on Mother’s Day. So why don’t you come home with me and meet my mom.”

Dr. Rachel Tudor, a professor of English, Humanities, and Philosophy at SOSU has been denied tenure despite ample support from her colleagues, immediate supervisors, a Faculty Senate resolution with no opposition, and two Faculty Appeals Committee rulings in her favor. No explanation was given for the rejection, and she was blocked from reapplying (as many professors successfully do), again without explanation. At this point, Tudor has exhausted every forum to rectify her situation and her contract with the university will be terminated as of May 31 “without cause.”

All the evidence suggests that Dr. Tudor has been discriminated against for being transgender, primarily by Dr. Douglas McMillan, SOSU’s Vice President for Academic Affairs. When Tudor first transitioned, McMillan request she be terminated because her identity “offends his Baptist beliefs.” Though he could not have her fired, he was successful at requiring she only be allowed to use a single-stall restroom on a different floor from her office. In addition, the dean who oversees Tudor’s department, Dr. Lucretia Scoufos, regularly disrespected Tudor by referring to her with male pronouns. These two individuals had sole authority over the original tenure decision and McMillan was also who blocked her from reapplying.

Despite the way it seems her administrators went out of their way to block her continued employment, Tudor appreciates how others have stood up for her:

I’m completely overwhelmed and gratified so many people have taken initiative and shown their support. It’s amazing to see that people have such integrity.

According to a recent study, nearly half (47 percent) of transgender people have been fired, not hired, or denied promotion for their identity. Oklahoma has no state-level discrimination protections for gender identity, and without a federal ENDA, there is nothing to protect talented, successful employees like Tudor from being terminated without cause. Still, Tudor has taken her case to the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission, the US Department of Education, and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in hopes of intervention. You can support her by signing a petition for her reinstatement.

Glen previously joined the podcast for a discussion about gay-for-pay porn actors, but now he’s back to tell us all about his just-published memoir, The Jack Bank. In it, he chronicles growing up gay in Apartheid South Africa and participating in the revolution that led to sexual orientation becoming a protected class in that nation. He shares an excerpt from the book (despite an interruption by cats) and fields questions from Zack and Peterson not only about the content of the book, but the process of writing it and the importance of memoir as a genre. Order your copy of The Jack Bank today!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Buy The Jack Bank on Amazon.com.

» Visit Glen Retief’s homepage and blog.

» Peterson on being Glen’s partner: Two are Better than One–Art, Love, & Partnership

After a special monologue by Peterson, we discuss BODIES. How do we talk about bodies? What’s that intersexuality thing? What challenges do trans people still face? We lay it all out on the table and just talk about all our hesitations and yet curiosities with bodies, mixed with some recent news.  Take a listen, and then tell us your hangups and joys when it comes to bodies!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Peterson Toscano’s A Musing: Henry Kissinger had a Boob Job!

» Intersex Society of North America

» Abortion not a women’s issue? Feministing: Behind the backlash: what’s so scary about deconstructing the gender binary?

» Malaysia’s got an anti-gay camp for boys, but it’s illegal.

» Texas considers banning trans marriage. But in Texas, different kinds of trans marriages are legal because of Littleton v. Prange.

» PBS’s In The Life highlights transgender Injustice at Every Turn.

This past Wednesday was National Ask An Atheist Day, a campaign by the Secular Student Alliance to encourage young nonbelievers to help their peers dispel mysteries about atheists.

Though I am no longer at an educational institution, I welcomed questions and answered them on Twitter. Most of the questions I got were from friends, some of whom were complaining I wasn’t answering the questions on Facebook where they were asking them. Here are all the answers I offered. Remember, anyone’s free to ask me an atheist-related question anytime! Enjoy!

Q: What’s your back up, man, in case of the Rapture?
A: I’ll finally be able to get some reading done.

Q: Do you believe in the possibility of intelligent energy forces that cannot be seen or detected?
A: No. If they’re so intelligent, they should learn how to communicate.

Q: Why ask #askanatheist questions when the bible has all the answers? I’m just sayin’
A: Someone who thinks the bible has all the answers would have capitalized the b.

Q: WHY DO YOU HAVE NO MORALS?!?!!?
A: Because I’m motivated by Satan, who I definitely believe in, and worship.

Q: If God doesn’t exist, in fact if a loving God doesn’t exist, then why did she invent beer?
A: I believe your pronouns are wrong, John. The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s heave has active beer volcanoes all over.

Q: Were you stung by the scorpion of atheism before or after you were bitten by the serpent of homosexuality?
A: I was the frog who carried the scorpion across the river, the serpent ate my remains, and I was reincarnated as Zack.

Q: When choosing a virgin for your ritual human sacrifices to Satan, does having had oral sex rule that person out?
A: Satan uses the strictest definition of virginity to encourage people to sin more. Oral is totally fair game.

Q: Do you think we’ll ever get to a place where superstition and big brother in the sky don’t rule the populace?
A: Sure, just go to Europe. Their governments even have institutionalized religion and they don’t care. #Paradise

Q: Why do you want to force working class people to labor on Xmas, probably making those little Darwinfish bumperstickers too?
A: All our bumperstickers are homemade, and unless Christmas is on the Sabbath, there’s no excuse not to be working.

Q: Do atheists celebrate Easter?
A: Yes! On Easter Sunday, we sing prettier songs in the shower than we normally sing.

Q: Do you hate Peeps and chocolate bunnies?
A: I’m not particularly fond of peeps, but I like my bunnies dark and hollow, just like most religious dogma.

Q: So are you telling me (the Christian) to stop asking questions?
A: Umm… nope!

Q: Why do atheists always want to shut down debate?!
A: I’ll confess, our use of critical thinking, reasoning, logic, and facts does seem to inhibit further debate.

Q: If I follow you around the internet like this, do I get a coupon for a $500 Walmart gift certificate?
A: I don’t believe in Walmart.

After past discussions of sexual fantasies and even an interview with a porn star, Zack and Peterson decided it was time to actually talk about porn. In particular, the conversation addresses two questions: what were folks’ first experience with porn and what role has porn played in folks’ lives? There is sharing all around, including from a number of commenters on Peterson’s blog. We try to tackle the taboo around acknowledging porn’s existence in our lives and celebrate some of the important benefits it can actually offer us. Please feel free to leave your own comments (even if you disagree) and feel free to share your own story as well!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Peterson’s invitation to discuss: What about porn?

» This week’s erotic poem: How To Make Love to a Trans Person by Gabe Moses

This week, Zack and Peterson welcome to the show Carl Siciliano, founder and executive director of The Ali Forney Center in New York City, which provides shelter for LGBT homeless youth. Since its founding nearly ten years ago, The Ali Forney Center has been on the forefront of addressing the epidemic of homelessness that impacts young LGBT people at absurdly disproportionate rates. Still, in 2011, the center only can offer 57 of the 200 beds available nationwide for the thousands of LGBT youth living on the streets and fights for the funds to provide even that. Carl shares with us the history of the center and the uphill battle to save our community’s young people.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s erotic poem: Sublimation Point by Jason Schneiderman.

» Donate to The Ali Forney Center.

» Sign the Change.org petition to protect LGBT homeless youth in NY.

» Read Carl Siciliano’s open letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo.

» Read more stories from LGBT homeless youth in California (PDF).

…

Believe it or not, the American Family Association is (I think—who can tell?) still boycotting Pepsi and Home Depot, and probably a few other companies who have done anything pro-LGBT. I guess that demonstrates that the AFA is all bark, no bite.

But part of the power of a boycott is its visibility. It’s not always just enough to not shop at a certain store or not buy a certain product. For example, I don’t buy peanut butter or eat at Long John Silver’s, but not because I’m boycotting either.

I actually have been boycotting Target, though. And I’ll be honest, I haven’t been the best at it. Sure, I’ve not purchased anything at Target in a good 10 months, but I haven’t been vocal about it, and I certainly haven’t stood in front of Target protesting or written letters to the editor or done any of the things effective boycotters should do. For me, it’s just been a matter of personal principle.

There are a lot of folks in the LGBT community who shrug their shoulders at boycotting Target, and I can appreciate their reluctance. I used to think Target (tar-zhay) was the gay store. It was the anti-Wal-Mart and anybody who was anybody had one of those chic medusa lamps in their dorm room. And Target has long been lauded by HRC as being pro-LGBT. Target’s donations last summer challenged that image, and just because we can understand why Target would support a pro-business PAC doesn’t forgive them for supporting an anti-gay PAC, nor for continuing to support anti-gay candidates since that debacle. Lady Gaga’s calling off of her deal with Target should’ve suggested we haven’t seen the last of the store’s anti-gay antics.

The same goes with Chick-Fil-A. A lot of people really like Chick-Fil-A and don’t want to stop enjoying their tasty chicken. I am fortunate, I suppose, that thanks to geography I’ve never really had Chick-Fil-A. (Ironically, the one time I’ve ever had it was on the campus of a university who ended up not hiring me as a social justice educator because they weren’t “ready” for someone so outspoken about LGBT issues; unsurprisingly, that campus has not had much debate about the presence of a Chick-Fil-A in its campus center.) But plenty of folks will continue to eat there, regardless of how anti-LGBT the company might be. After all, it’s just chicken, right?

But this week, we learned a little bit more about both of these companies and just how anti-LGBT (and duplicitously so) they really are. In the case of Chick-Fil-A, Equality Matters uncovered that Chick-Fil-A is a WHOLE lot more anti-LGBT than we already knew them to be… to the tune of $1.1 million. And that’s money not just going to pro-business right-wing PACs; it’s going directly into the hands of “pro-family” groups who spread lies about LGBT people, defend Christian bullies, and promote harmful ex-gay therapies.

In the case of Target, we learned this week of their lawsuit against Canvass for a Cause, and as I wrote about over on The Wonk Room, they seem to be targeting this group exclusively because of its support of same-sex marriage. While the complaint speaks of CFAC’s harassment of customers, the trial saw no first-hand testimony confirming these allegations. But Target’s own filed complaint (PDF), corroborated by its employee’s testimony, confirms that Target is concerned customers will “never shop at Target again,” “ensure their friends and family do not shop at Target,” and “return everything they bought at Target” because they “believe Target promotes the same sensitive political message” as CFAC.

And while CFAC promotes a number of issues, that particular “sensitive” message is support of gay marriage marriage equality; it’s the only issue mentioned in the whole case from the documents I’ve seen, and they mention it a lot. Daniel Brown, the employee who provides the only testimony hearsay (PDF) about the complaints, said that some customers were “offended” and that “many mothers with children have complained about the sensitive nature” of the messaging.

For decades, the LGBT community has been fighting the meme that queer people are dangerous to children—that we’re going to molest them, recruit them, and teach them all about anal sex while they’re in Kindergarten. And here is a supposed “friend” using that same old stereotype to defend itself in a gratuitous lawsuit against a grassroots group being defended by a volunteer lawyer.

Target doesn’t want to be known as supporting marriage equality because gays are dangerous to children. That’s the takeaway. It’s in the public record.

So the decision comes back to the LGBT community. Do we still patronize these companies—companies that actively demonize us and work against our equality? While my personal answer will continue to be No, I think the larger community needs to have a serious conversation about it.

If the recent poll on marriage equality tells us anything, it’s that we have more allies than ever. If we really wanted to mobilize a huge block of people to support us, I’m betting that we could. The problem, I think, is that we’re too comfortable. We like shopping at Target and eating at Chick-Fil-A and we don’t see their actions as that big of a deal—at least not big enough to change our habits. We want equality, but it almost seems as if many of us would rather wait than make any sacrificial efforts in the meantime.

Maybe AFA is the lesson for us. Maybe boycotts don’t work in 2011, or don’t catch on, or aren’t worth it. Maybe bad press is enough to get the job done, along with a certain quota of negative tweets. Or maybe we’re desensitized to our inequality; we’re willing to tolerate it, such that  it takes something as big and visible as Prop 8 or DADT to really get us off our asses.

But gosh, I’d love to see us try. I’d love to see pickets in front of Targets and Chick-Fil-As (Chicks-Fil-A?). I’d love to see all the big orgs really visibly condemning the corporations and every single blogger actively promoting the boycott. I don’t think we’ve tried it on the national stage, at least not anytime recently. And certainly we saw a lot of success—or at least visibility—from the boycotts of Prop 8 supporters like the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. So the only thing stopping us is ourselves.

At the end of it all, when we finally get all the equality we deserve in this country, I hope we don’t look back and say, “We could’ve gotten it a lot sooner if we’d just acted more like we wanted it.”

It’s Zack’s last day in Pennsylvania, and for once, Peterson has come to him! This week, we delve back into the world of ex-gay therapy because Lisa Ling forces us to respond to the Our America exposé of Exodus International on the Oprah Winfrey Network. Almost the entire program was an open platform for ex-gay therapy, with very little challenge or critique or basic reporting about the ineffectiveness and real harm that comes from ex-gay therapy. We address the problems with the special, and invite our special guest Anthony to shed some light on the world of ex-straights, which were not featured at all in the special. ALSO: Zack premieres an original erotic poem! You can read it below.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Read Peterson’s response to the Our America ex-gay special.

» Watch Wayne Besen’s response to the Our America ex-gay special (Truth Wins Out).

» Relisten to our interview with Christine Robinson about how ex-gay therapy = genocide.

» Read Zack’s erotic poem:

Puddlejumper

No words or pleasantries expressed,
An expected tolerance for each other’s
temporary company.
Yet moments after take off,
another occurs:
His knee firmly against mine.

Suddenly, I am consumed with all that he is,
But there is nothing more I need know.
The buzz in my thigh is as crisp as his
military haircut.

And though this 47-minute puddlejumper
Leaves little expectation for tolerating more,
I no longer worry about making my connection.

It’s already been made.

President Obama and the First Lady unveiled the administration’s new plan to help stop bullying in schools nationwide Thursday at the White House Bullying Conference.

About 150 participants, ranging from teachers, professors, parents, community members, organizations, and students took part in the conference at the White House to discuss the bullying crisis.

In remarks to participants from the East Room of the White House, President Obama and the First Lady spoke to the need for communities and schools to work together and take action to combat bullying and harassment and also of the struggles faced by students and families who have suffered and endured challenges. Said the President:

A third of middle school and high school students have reported being bullied during the school year. Almost 3 million students have said they were pushed, shoved, tripped, even spit on. It’s also more likely to affect kids that are seen as different, whether it’s because of the color of their skin, the clothes they wear, the disability they may have, or sexual orientation.

New initiatives from Facebook and MTV were also announced along with the launch of a new resource from the Federal government called Stop Bullying.

As participants broke out into small group sessions to discuss issues related to bullying in schools, one family in attendance spoke of their loss and renewed spirit to fight back against bullying and harassment in schools.

Kirk Smalley and his wife lost their 11-year-old son Ty Field last May when he took his own life after repeatedly being bullying and harassment at school and online by his peers. The sixth grader from Oklahoma had, according to his parents, spoken to his teachers about the bullying but they did not take him seriously. Kirk also says that his wife tried several times to speak with school officials but was met with little assistance. They now speak out against bullying ans harassment and the need for creating safe schools in Oklahoma and around the country.

In an emotional speech to participants, Kirk Smalley said, “These are not statistics or numbers; these are our babies. I cannot begin to tell you with what urgency we need to attack this issue.”

Kirk Smalley and his wife were among four groups of parents with children who had taken their own lives due to bullying and harassment in attendance at the conference. Their presence was a reminder of what bullying and harassment does not only to a youth but also to a family and a community that was both heart-breaking and inspiring.

Mr. Frost, an Elementary School teacher from Arlington, Virgina who attend the conference and was a guest of President Obama, said that in order to combat bullying we need to get back to community schools. He says that he sees challenges daily but the the key is to teach students to respect each other and themselves.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave closing remarks at the end of the day summing up why we need inclusive safe schools and policy:

We need to have a fundamental cultural shift in our schools and communities. We all have an obligation to make our schools safer for all students. No school can be a good school until they are a safe school.

The Department of Education also announced that on the Federal level they would be creating a task force on bullying and a new reporting system that would gather vital statistics on what is happening across the country on this issue. Sec. Duncan also said the Department of Education was committed to making sure that schools and communities had the tools they needed to take action.

But as we move forward talking about bullying and harassment we must make sure to include all youth directly in the discussions on best practices. We must have honest dialog within our local communities and schools about what is going on and especially about what is not working.

It will take all of us to break down the barriers that exist in this debate and create a level playing field—one where all students, all educators, and all families have a voice in creating safe schools and safe spaces. There is not one perfect plan of action to solve this epidemic that effects PreK–College students but a good start is empowering students and care-givers in self-advocacy and support against intolerance.

Yesterday, a memorial service was held for 13-year-old Nicholas Kelo, Jr. of Rittman, OH. The middle school student took his own life after being bullied for joining high school band and was taunted for his perceived sexual orientation. Kelo’s death by suicide is just the latest of countless examples of a problem in our schools that continues to go uninterrupted.

We need to stand up and speakOUT now. This is a crisis in all of our communities and schools nationwide.

Take action and tell your Congress member today to support the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) and the Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA) for inclusive safe schools.

It is SO weird to think that 26 months ago I started this blog just as a hobby, a little place to synthesize some things that were on my mind and hopefully create some discussion. I never really thought it would become a prominent part of my life and identity, and it seems that now it is very much the defining aspect of who I am.

I spent this weekend in San Francisco communing with 40+ other LGBT bloggers and publishers, as you can see in the photo above. As I felt at Netroots Nation last year, I still had moments where I looked around and still couldn’t believe where I was and with whom I was working. I hope this doesn’t come off as false modesty, but there’s still something crazy about seeing your tweets be retweeted by bloggers that you have always looked to as role models or by mainstream LGBT publishers. I’m still not sure how I got here.

Add to that the fact that after I return east from San Francisco tonight, I will be packing up to move to DC this week to start my full-time job as an LGBT blogger. It’s now going to be my occupation—my primary purpose in life—what I stake my reputation on. It just blows my mind.

And I guess what I want to say is… Go for it. I’m not where I am because there’s anything special about me. I’m not being handed anything on a silver platter. While I’ve certainly been mentored, I don’t think I’ve gotten any special advantages as a result of connections that I’ve made. I just committed myself to my writing and to making the difference I want to make.

Commitment, passion, integrity. That’s what it takes.

The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot of folks out there who think it’s all about just drawing attention to themselves. They provoke just to provoke and complain just to complain. They don’t write their blogs or tweet their tweets for anybody but themselves. They think if they can cause a stink that they mean something and that they’re worth listening to.

They aren’t.

The power of the blogosphere is the passion of individuals to communicate ideas for the benefit of others. We can work together to amplify important messages (like the topics of youth suicide we discussed this weekend in San Francisco) to affect the ideas discussed by society when the mainstream media doesn’t. We can challenge each other and engage with each other, but we also trust and respect each other because we have common goals. None of us live luxuriously off our efforts; it is the difference we can make that propels us.

This weekend, as many of us were connecting and sharing important knowledge with each other, some antagonists posing as “gay activists” tried to interrupt our efforts. Motivated only by their own egos, they attempted to hijack our twitter stream and paint us as a group of uber-privileged brats who want for nothing and are secretly out to destroy the LGBT movement. They attacked us, insulted us, smeared us, bullied us, and victimized themselves despite clearly having no understanding of who many of us are, what we write about, or what the purpose of this meet-up was. They also wanted it to sound like this was some secret exclusive meeting, despite the fact we livetweeted the entire event. It couldn’t have been more transparent.

These individuals have no credibility as advocates, activists, or even as writers, but they feel because they have a platform on the internet that their point of view is valid. It is clear when the only effective way to engage with such individuals is to ignore them that they do not have substantive or meaningful contributions to make towards our supposedly common goals.

It is this selfishly motivated approach to blogging that gets folks nowhere. They do not get respect; their ideas do not get traction. They are not worth a single retort because the attention of such a retort is all they care about.

The blogosphere is a community, and the more that we can work together, the better. To those whose approach is to attack, belittle, and (self-)ostracize, there is no reason to invite them to further engage. It is those who aspire to educate and inform and create a more inclusive society who must be highlighted and promoted.

I continue to be honored that I have been welcomed and promoted in this way in the blogosphere. I admire the brilliant minds that I now get to interact with on a daily basis and look forward to all the opportunities yet ahead to work with them to make society a better place for LGBT people. And to all our detractors; keep trying. I’d rather you waste your time as our petulant trolls than bother other people with your nonsense.

We teach our children: speak no ill of the dead. At a funeral, say nice things about the corpse in the coffin. She can’t answer accusations anymore.

If this is true of dead people in general, even more so when the dead person in question is a mere kid, a “laaitie” as we say in my native South Africa. (I immigrated to the United States about sixteen years ago—more about that in a minute). When that child has been bullied and brutalized, we’re tempted to raise them to sainthood. So St. Sebastian, with arrows sticking out of his body, looking to heaven in wounded ecstasy. Also, college boy Tyler Clementi, who got taped making out with a man in his Rutgers dorm room, and then jumped off the George Washington Bridge. Or, closer to my central Pennsylvania home, Brandon Bitner, who got fed up with being gay-bashed at Middleburg High School, and stepped in front of a speeding truck.

As Zack Ford said in this blog three months ago: “We owe [Brandon] that love now, more than ever.” In my home town, people compete for stories of how they are connected to him. My cousin’s husband was the driver of the truck—those kinds of tales. Brandon’s memorial page is understandably full of longing and regret. An acrostic poem states: “An angel you are to us now.”

I don’t mean to spoil the party, but I just can’t do go along with all this anymore. I’ve had enough. It’s certainly not that I hate Brandon, Tyler, Justin Aeburg, Asher Brown, and all of the other depressed queer teenagers who’ve taken their lives over the past year or so. A gay man myself, I value their difference. Is it even necessary to say I strongly condemn their harassment and abuse?

Nor am I blaming these kids for their own deaths in that sadistic US marine sergeant kind of way: “Friggin’ sissy! Toughen up!” They had enough of that crap while alive.

What I am tired of is feeling I’m supposed to fetishize these boys’ victimhood, kiss their broken bones like George of Diocletian’s, adore them ten times the more now they are dead than I would have done if they’d carried on to live happy, fulfilled, grown-up gay lives. More than if they’d survived.

I experienced my own homophobic hell growing up white and gay in apartheid South Africa, an experience I describe in my forthcoming memoir, The Jack Bank. I spent my early years in the Kruger National Park, where a lioness charged my mother and a buffalo killed a housekeeper who crossed a dry river bed in the wrong spot. But what I experienced at age 12, when I was sent away to a whites-only, government boarding school, made these early brushes with danger seem simple.

A seventeen-year-old prefect figured out I was gay when he caught me “looking at him funny” in the shower room. He beat me, sometimes several times a week, on my buttocks with a cricket bat. We called them “jacks,” in South Africa—thrashings—and senior boys were unofficially allowed to administer them to juniors.

He built an electric shock machine with a hand telephone crank and shocked boys’ genitalia. When he suspected another kid of informing on him to his parents, he staged a mock nude hanging in the senior boys’ bathroom. All the time he told us—me in particular—he wanted to beat the “queer” and “sissy” out of us. He said we needed to fight a race war, and this meant we should get some backbone.

One night, just before he got transferred out of the junior dormitory for being too brutal even for apartheid norms, he invented something called the “jack bank,” where we could deposit beatings and they could earn interest. We volunteered for these beatings. We begged him, “Please, sir! More!” When he got transferred out of our passage, the thing that most infuriated us was that we lost our deposits.

We sweltered, for years, in fear and dehumanization, a program designed specifically to prepare us for the role of racist oppressors. At times I felt like Brandon—suicidal. At other times we took out our hurt and anger by beating those younger than us. Some of my most nauseating memories of high school are of pushing younger boys’ heads in a wooden mailbox, beating them as hard as I could with a cricket bat, and then feeling a great deal of power and self-satisfaction when I got them to fear and obey me. Until the self-disgust later drove me to vomit over the toilet.

But I got through these trials, as did hundreds of thousands of other gay white boys under apartheid, not to mention the millions of young black South Africans whose suffering greatly exceeded ours.

The world knows the end of this story. Nelson Mandela, walking free in front of the television cameras. Corporal punishment being banned in South African schools. The adoption of one of the world’s most progressive constitutions, which also bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation—a clause I helped lobby for, and celebrated ecstatically when it was passed into law.

I’m trying not to be self-righteous here. Lord knows (metaphorically speaking, on this atheist blog!), I have no reason to be. See a couple of paragraphs above.

But still, part of me is angry at Brandon, Tyler and co. for caving in. For giving the haters what they wanted—a few less gay people in the people. For not keeping going long enough to show the world they could leave adolescence behind and be peaceful and happy queers.

Any depressed gay teenager out there today could look at the reaction to these kids’ deaths and think, “If I want everyone to love me, I should just kill myself!”

But this is wrong. We can survive, hard as it is. We can find joy and peace; can learn to be kind to each other. We can mourn people like Brandon and Tyler, without romanticizing their martyrdom. We can protest bullying. And that way we can, at least at moments, be real angels for our fellow human beings, as opposed to vanished saints.

THAT’s love worth giving, day after day, for as long as it’s needed.

Zack and Peterson are back in person with each other, but it might be the last time for a while, as Zack has accepted a job in the DC area! But don’t worry, the podcast isn’t going anywhere! This week we take a trip to Harding University in Arkansas, Flour Bluff School District in Texas, and even Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas! The topic? Free speech and queer identities in education. Take a listen to learn all the latest happenings about how queer people are being erased!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s erotic poem: Episode of Hands by Hart Crane.

» Read the Harding University Queer Press, follow them on Twitter, Like them on Facebook, and watch the President’s scathing speech.

» Learn more about the decision to prevent the GSA in Corpus Christi.

» Zack’s response to the Westboro SCOTUS decision and Bill O’Reilley’s discussion with Megyn Kelly.

» Learn more about the “Be Happy, Not Gay” t-shirt controversy.

» OUTspoken 2011

» True Colors 2011

» Adelina Anthony

» Jade Esteban Estrada

They won their right to protest, and I’m glad. It may be vile, but it’s free speech.

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here–inflict great pain,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

But I’m going to go a step further and say that I’m also glad they get to continue protesting.

Why would I be glad about a group of crazies continuing to spout anti-gay filth in incredibly insensitive settings?

Because they are a stimulus that forces everyone else to react.

Folks who are anti-gay have to respond to Westboro by clarifying they are not that anti-gay. But of course, they are! And so often, the distinction is made in regards to Westboro’s rhetoric, but not their message. Anti-gay opponents don’t want to be associated with “God hates fags,” but it’s amazing how many stop short of saying “God doesn’t hate fags.”

I’m not alone in feeling this way about Westboro. A group called Phags for Phelps promotes the impact WBC has as a catalyst for LGBT equality. Shirley Phelps-Roper, herself, has made the case that anyone who claims to disagree with WBC has no business opposing same-sex marriage. In other words, you either oppose homosexuality like WBC does or you don’t oppose it. It’s a pretty worthwhile challenge for other anti-gay folks to respond to.

Shirley also points out that there was not nearly the same kind of outrage to WBC until they started protesting military funerals. Are people actually bothered by the fact that WBC is anti-gay, or just the fact that they disrupt military funerals? You don’t have to support the Phelps clan to make some pretty compelling arguments about how folks respond to them.

Justice Alito is no exception. A sensitive soul, he offered the only dissent in the decision, asserting that WBC did impose real pain on the Snyder family, regardless of how many laws they obeyed in the process. In making his case that the pain was “irreparable,” he offered this paragraph (p. 7 of his dissent, citations omitted):

Other signs would most naturally have been understood as suggesting—falsely—that Matthew was gay. Homosexuality was the theme of many of the signs. There were signs reading “God Hates Fags,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “Fags Doom Nations,” and “Fag Troops.” Another placard depicted two men engaging in anal intercourse. A reasonable bystander seeing those signs would have likely concluded that they were meant to suggest that the deceased was a homosexual.

This paragraph was presented in the context of making the case that WBC “brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack… was almost certain to inflict injury.” Is Justice Alito implying, then, that to imply an individual is gay is an injurious attack against that individual’s character?

Justice Alito would be saying (and I think he is) that being gay is a bad thing. After all, his argument is intended to defend the military family, not LGBT people. How can we not conclude that Justice Alito is homophobic?

The Phelps clan certainly do some harmful things, and I’m not condoning them. In fact, I don’t think anybody is. But they’re going to keep doing what they do, and I think it’s important to focus on the positive. The Westboro Baptist Church is a litmus test for homophobia. They’re the one group who doesn’t sugarcoat their rhetoric, and so we should use that to our advantage.

You don’t have to like speech to appreciate the value of upholding free speech.

Possible presidential candidate Herman Cain called it a “breach of presidential duty bordering on treason.”

Newt Gingrich has called for Obama to be impeached.

Speaker Boehner expects the House GOPers will step in to defend it.

And plenty of folks all over the right are lying that the President is no longer enforcing DOMA, which he quite notably is.

All of this got me thinking about the very gradual approach—the long haul—toward LGBT equality. In the scheme of the movement, this DOMA decision was not that big. It was two years overdue. It doesn’t undo the damage done by the anti-LGBT DOMA briefs. It doesn’t even necessarily expedite federal recognition of same-sex couples.

If anything, the call for heightened scrutiny is a much bigger deal, but no one’s talking about that.

But this one little decision has spurred a deluge from the right. Treason? Impeachment? Loss of all credibility? All the big guns for just this one little policy change.

Where are our big guns?

We’ve been playing the very long, very patient high-road game. Step by step, we’ll get to equality eventually. But that’s not the way our opponents play the game at all.

They lambast. They overreact. They explode with rage and they attack! attack! attack!

Now am I applauding their strategy? Not necessarily. But I question ours a bit. I don’t want to start lying or exaggerating. But I want us to have some guts. I want us to be able to be pissed.

Our civil rights movement has been pretty posh. Sure, our elders are living in poverty, our kids are bullied and homeless, our trans community attempts suicide at 40x the national rate, and the HIV epidemic never really ended. But it’s the middle-class couples with jobs and children that are our biggest priority, right? We need marriage equality now!

When are we going to be pissed about how our community is actually treated in this society? When are we going to fight back? When are we going to call people out? When are we actually going to make a concerted stand?

I still feel like I haven’t seen it.

If anything, the National Equality March came closest. And it had a lot of potential to energize and motivate and utilize a whole lot of young people tired of injustice. And did anybody do anything with it? No.

Look, the President is hurting us slightly less on one of our issues! Hooray! We’re so grateful! You’re the best gay ally in presidential history! Whoopee!

Suddenly Bil and Pam come along wanting to air some dirty political laundry and everyone backs away. Oh no. We’re not that kind of a movement. We don’t call people out. We just raise lots of money for our elite lobbyists and then let them lobby. Lobby lobby lobby. That’s how we’ll get equality.

I can’t wait to see what Bil and Pam come up with. And I can’t wait to see the whole movement look and say, “Oh! Yeah! Look at the hypocrites!” and suddenly be on board with a little investigative research on our opponents. But in the meantime, are our relationships with the progressive movement so fragile and poor that any political boat-rocking is considered too big a risk? Three and a half minutes from Lawrence O’Donnell calling out some lies is our big guns? (Thanks for that much, Lawrence.)

We can’t do anything big if it isn’t a nice polished campaign with one of the big orgs’ logos on it, because of course, who gets the credit is more important than what gets accomplished. We can’t even agree on messaging. We’re all just doing our own thing and pretending it’s a cohesive movement with a realistic timeline. It’s no wonder it feels like a surprise every time a new state gets civil unions or whatever, because no one’s paying attention to what each other is doing!

We should care about education. We should care about helping every single American citizen understand the basic concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity. We should be quite proud of our morality and call out every hypocrite who tries to smear us “dirty homosexuals” but won’t acknowledge his own vita of adultery, divorce, and other abridgments of the “sanctity of marriage.” We should celebrate every victory, but each should make us more eager to demand the next, not less. We should be pissed every single time any politician or public figure smears us, and we should emphasize immediate movement-wide response (as opposed to, say, just waiting for GLAAD to deal with it).

But that’s not our movement. We aren’t transparent and we don’t work together. We don’t come with the big guns handy, and while for some of us these issues are our lives, our progressive allies think they’re doing us a big one by even mentioning our struggles. And we’re so thankful when they do; it’s a lot to ask of them.

This is insufficient.

If the right is going to make a big deal about every little step forward we take, it’s time we demand the left have the same reaction for every attempt at a little step backward. The stagnancy is stifling, and I’m sorry, but I don’t have the same patience as my very comfortable elders in the movement.

Obviously, yesterday’s announcement that the Department of Justice will no longer defend (Section 3 of) the Defense of Marriage Act is a good thing, as was making the case that sexual orientation deserves heightened scrutiny.

But this question has to be asked: Why now?

Why did we have to endure two years of the defense of DOMA? Why did we have to endure comparisons to incest and child rape?

It’s important to remember that yesterday’s decision was a change in policy. That I noticed, it did not include an apology for the previous policy.

Likewise, the Department of Justice is going to continue to defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this week. Even though training has already begun to implement repeal, the Log Cabin Republicans’ case is proceeding since repeal is still months from certification. What arguments will the Department of Justice use to defend the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell if, at the same time, it’s suggesting heightened scrutiny for DOMA?

I want to give President Obama credit for this change, I really do. But he still opposes same-sex marriage! That’s kind of a problem.

He could have done it for political reasons. It wins him some favor from the left and puts it to the right to deal with. Many have already noted the irony and hypocrisy of Speaker Boehner’s response. Given that his first order of business as Speaker of the House was to address a controversial social issue (defunding Planned Parenthood), it’s absurd that he would complain that the President is doing the same. If he or other Congressional Republicans tried to intervene in the defense of DOMA, it would be all the more obvious how disingenuous they are about their intentions.

So, I don’t know. I don’t have some grand point to make. There are a lot of folks who complain about people like me for always putting down the President and not giving credit where credit’s due. But if my rights are just being used as a political strategy and my equality isn’t really being favored, I guess I just feel like I have to call that out.

Am I a sourpuss for being skeptical?

1. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have indicated today that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, adding that sexual orientation should be given heightened scrutiny. It’s not entirely clear yet exactly what impact this will have on the cases already proceeding. For an understanding of why they’re only not defending Section 3 of DOMA, read Adam Serwer’s post.

Of course, conservatives are up in arms, including NOM, Matt Barber, and Peter LaBarbera. Joe Jervis points out that the homocons have not yet responded.

On a related note, Senator Dianne Feinstein announced in response that she will introduce legislation to finally repeal DOMA.

2. Meanwhile, in California, the American Foundation for Equal Rights has demanded that the U.S. Court of Appeals lift the stay on Judge Walker’s decision and allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to take on the question of standing adds excessive delays to the process. Said Ted Olson:

We are respectfully asking the Court to lift its stay on marriage for gay and lesbian couples because it has become apparent that the legal process is taking considerably longer than could reasonably have been anticipated. It’s important to remember that the stay was originally ordered with the understanding that the Ninth Circuit would rule swiftly on the case before it. Now that the issue of the Proponents’ standing to appeal has been referred for analysis by the California Supreme Court, substantial additional, indefinite and unanticipated delays lie ahead. It’s unreasonable and decidedly unjust to expect California’s gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second class citizens while their U.S. District Court victory is debated further.

3. In Maryland there is movement forward on marriage equality, as the Maryland Senate voted favorably for a second (of three) on a bill for marriage equality.

4. However, in Iowa, conservatives are tapping into every last resort to try to limit same-sex marriage there. The latest scheme is to try to use a provision in the Iowa Constitution that skips judicial review in order to prohibit county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Apparently, banning same-sex marriage is more important to some Republicans than checks and balances.

5. A marriage amendment bill has been filed in North Carolina, and Pam Spaulding says, “Game on.” Like Bil Browning is doing in Indiana, Pam is ready to expose the hypocrites by publicizing divorcees, adulterers, closet-cases, and financial benefactors among the proponents of this anti-gay bill. If you have any insights, pass them along to Pam.

6. BONUS: Before the day is over, the governor of Hawaii will sign civil unions into law!

Maryland, Hawaii, DOMA… an important day of steps forward.

I’m a little under the weather today, so if you’re looking for some content to absorb, you should watch the following two short films. The first is sweet and the second funny. Then, if you still need more content to absorb, go catch up on Queer and Queerer!

One on One:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bFeSxNiWkY

Y2GAY:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXmTbCT1b5U

The opening plenary of Creating Change 2011 bridged the main conference with its subconference, Practice Spirit, Do Justice. Entitled “Hard work for our common good,” the panel featured four religious leaders with prepared statements: Bishop Yvette Flunder (City of Refuge/UCC), Rev. Elder Nancy Wilson (MCC), Rabbi Joshua Lesser, and Faisal Alam, a Muslim leader.

And while I was prepared for many faith-centric messages, I was not prepared for how erased and marginalized I would feel on the very first day of the conference. Most of the 25 who joined the atheist caucus the following evening expressed similar concerns, as did many CC veterans who could not attend but followed along on Twitter.

As an obvious start, the opening panel did not feature a Humanist, Unitarian, or nonbeliever who could speak for the experiences of those who do not identify with faith. Arguably, plenty of other worldviews also went unrepresented as well. But the language that was used, particularly by Rev. Wilson and Bishop Flunder, not so subtly erased nonbelievers from the LGBT community and movement. And while atheists and agnostics were acknowledged a time or two, we were not represented nor affirmed by the supposedly interfaith panel.

Rev. Rebecca Voelkel opened the session by declaring, “This is where we are as a movement,” celebrating that a panel of faith leaders were opening the conference. Both Rev. Wilson and Rabbi Lesser spoke to the way the LGBT movement has excluded or dismissed faith communities in the past. And then Bishop Flunder pronounced the following:

I’d like to lift up tonight the presence of faith and deep spirituality as the underpinning if most, if not all real, authentic civil rights movements. I believe that the power to endure and be courageous amid continual physical, emotional, and spiritual attack must come from a deep well that is continually filled by the divine of our understanding.

She later invoked the prophet Paul, reminding us, “If God be for us, who would dare be against us,” and then declared “We will get our God back!”

Rev. Wilson added in her follow-up remarks that “Activism, to be sustained, requires faith of some kind, maybe not religious or spiritual, but some kind of sustaining faith.” This was her introduction to her hopes for the nonreligious and religious to work together.

These are just a few of the examples of language that left me incredibly triggered, excluded from the movement and the community. I left the session taking not much else with me. I’m glad the entire video is online, because upon relistening, I found a lot of important and powerful ideas that I could respect and appreciate. I implore you: take 45 minutes and listen for yourself. And yet, the panel still makes me feel incredibly invisible, like I am not welcome to be a part of this movement—that because I do not identify with faith of any kind, I have nothing to contribute towards our queer liberation.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXXfcwJm2zo

The atheist/nonbeliever caucus was a remarkable experience. Not everyone there identified with the a-word. There were Humanists, agnostics, and even some folks of varying degrees of spirituality. But we weren’t there to argue over vocabulary semantics; we were there to affirm each other. And one of the qualities that united most of the 25 individuals in the room was that it was the first time in their lives that they were in a room with that many other nonbelievers and the first time in their lives that they felt affirmed to come out and commune with their fellow nonbelievers.

I had proposed the caucus because I knew there was a need. I had no idea the need was so great.

Historically, there had been visibility for atheists in conferences past, but it has been many years since that was the case. If this year’s atheist caucus was any indication, we are overdue to reverse the trend of that invisibility.

The room was alive and abuzz! We committed most of the hour to creating space for each individual to speak and be affirmed. We could have easily communed and discussed issues for four or more.

In the course of the discussion, we agreed that Practice Spirit, Do Justice was not particularly welcoming or affirming for us. We also acknowledged that the intensity of faith at this year’s conference was likely unique, as Minneapolis is where The Task Force’s faith arm, The Institute for Welcome Resources, operates. Most importantly, everyone was energized to create additional inclusive spaces for atheists in future conferences.

And while I’m committed to that, I also put forth a challenge here and now to the organizers of the conference at large to create a more inclusive space for nonbelievers. Creating Change has been very proactive about offering suggestions for language use regarding other dimensions of identity, including race, gender identity, and ability. It’s time that these efforts be updated to create a truly interfaith space that does not exclude and erase nonbelievers.

In his book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, Greg Epstein offers the following suggestions for fully including Humanists and Atheists in interfaith spaces:

Don’t ask, “Can you be good without God?”

Do ask why we are motivated to be good, or to work with you.

Don’t proselytize to atheists in an interfaith context.

I hope readers can see how some of the assertions made during the plenary about the role of faith in the movement left out the motivations and experiences of those who do not identify with faith.

Do reach out specifically to atheist, secular, and Humanist groups and solicit their participation.

This has not been standard practice for Creating Change. Had I not proactively proposed the atheist caucus, there would have been no actual affirmation of nonbelievers’ contributions to the conference aside from lip service.

Don’t advertise interfaith events as for the religious only or as a way for everyone to unite, despite theological differences, around belief in God.

Practice Spirit, Do Justice and its overwhelming intersections with the conference at large clearly ran into this problem.

Do advertise as religiously pluralistic, including all religions as well as atheists, agnostics, Humanists, and the nonreligious.

To its credit, Creating Change does acknowledge nonbelievers as part of its community.

Use inclusive language: In addition to including us on your usual flyers, posters, or recruiting emails as above, try a special poster or e-mail emphasizing that interfaith includes the nonreligious too.

Include us in programs.

Learn and teach about us.

I was encouraged privately to propose atheist-centered workshops (such as an “Atheist 101″ workshop) as part of the Practice Spirit, Do Justice track, but I will confess that I did not truly feel welcome to do so. This may very well have been a failing on my part, and an opportunity I regret not seizing.

It is an interesting sort of personal irony I recognize.  I wish to counteract the lack of affirmation for nonbelievers, but it’s the very lack of affirmation that inhibits me from taking too bold a step.

Still, there were individuals at our caucus who told me that I was a trailblazer, a compliment I don’t think I earned by simply creating one space. Clearly the work needs to be done, and I do feel affirmed to step up and be a leader for this community of overlapping identities.

Rev. Wilson said, “You need us to beat their agenda.” Bishop Flunder repeated several times that negative religious messages need to be met with positive religious messages. I don’t disagree with either sentiment. Still, our commitment to reclaiming faith for LGBT people should not abandon those who seek not to reclaim faith and who are perhaps quite eager to challenge it. There is a boisterous atheist community chock full of LGBT allies who are just waiting to be invited to the table.

I hope Creating Change 2012 is where we can finally make that invitation and create a balanced space that celebrates all worldviews and lifestances, from the most spiritual to the least. It is certainly my commitment to step up and make it so.